Somalia: State-building under Attack

From: Somalicurrent

Despite the troubling silence of African, Islamic, and Western leaders about the Kenya government’s brutal human rights violations against the Somali community in Kenya for their ethnic background and about its unlawful military and diplomatic actions in Jubba regions of Somalia, a glimmer of hope emerged in April when two Nordic diplomats renewed a focus on peace building and state-building in Somalia. Donor Powers have been challenged to end the indirect rule, occupation, and containment, and seriously support state-building in Somalia. 

Continuation of current transgressive interactions between neighboring and other foreign countries and Somali clan enclave and city presidents and mayors flouts Somalia’s sovereignty, independence, and unity and undermines state-building objective central to Somalia’s peaceful existence and prosperity.

H. E. Pekka Havvisto, Minister of International Development of Finland and Co-chairperson of the Forum for International Dialogue on Peacebuilding and State-building (IDPS) and Jens Mjaugedal, Special Envoy of Norway for Somalia have called on donor powers to effectively honor their commitments for state-building in Somalia as mandated by UN Security Council. Immediately, in dissension, Ken Menkhaus, professor of political science at Davidson College in North Carolina, USA, specialist on Horn of Africa and an affiliate of Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala, Sweden, came out forcefully against the wisdom and viability of state-building in Somalia. Thus, the glimmer of hope for state-building is under attack.

On April 10, at a roundtable discussion on peacebuilding and state-building in the Horn of Africa held at Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., Pekka Havvisto has articulated the critical need to implement the goals and principles of the New Deal for Engagement in Conflict Affected and Fragile States agreed upon in Busan, Republic of Korea, in 2011. 

The five goals of the New Deal for state-building , namely political legitimacy and inclusivity, people’s security, system of justice, economic foundations, revenue and fair delivery services, have been developed through collaborative consultations between international donors, g7+ (19 conflict affected and fragile states), the international Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF) and Civil Society Secretariats under the leadership of IDPS Forum. Furthermore, the New Deal incorporates the five principles for Aid Effectiveness: ownership, alignment, harmonization, results, and mutual accountability on the basis of normative relations between donors and recipients.

Minister Pekka reiterated the fundamental principles of the New Deal which require countries and citizens of g7+ to take the lead and have ownership of the process of state-building and adopt a social contract (constitution) which binds the citizens and State. This ownership should be manifestly respected and supported by donor powers.

Particularly for Somalia where the foundations of governance are compledly missing, Minister Pekka contended that the constitution making process, the strong interests of neighboring countries in Somalia and the international community’s limited interest in security did undercut the takeoff of the New Deal. To preempt any possible question over the primacy between informal and formal institutions, he asserted that both institutions exist side by side in the Horn of Africa countries. In summary, his message was to promote the understanding and adoption of the New Deal for fragile states.

On April 17, in conversation with Peter Fabricious, foreign editor of Independent Newspapers in South Africa, Norway Special Envoy for Somalia Jens Mjaugedal repeated the views expressed by the Minister of Finland. He was particularly disturbed by how donor powers were far from grasping the reality of Somalia and wasting precious time in discussing issues peripheral to state-building in a warzone. He unambiguously suggested that donor powers need to conduct internal triage before they embark on state-building. He pointed out that the funding of UN programs is not contributing to the vital overall aim of establishing the capacity, credibility, and relevance of the Somali government.

For example, he cited that the Somali government is unable to pay salaries to eight thousand civil servants because donor powers did not disburse one dollar out of the $2.3 billion pledged at Brussels Conference in September 2013. It is also hard not to despair in the face of the level of suffering subjected to the Somali National Army who carries the burden of the war against Al Shabab. Somali Soldiers do not get the one twelfth (1/12) of the stipend regularly paid to each AMISOM soldier. At the same time they are deprived of basic care even in case of casualty.

Jens Mjaugedal did not advocate the release of large sum or Marshall Plan. He appealed for the release of less than 5 % of $ 2.3 billion. The three-year new deal pledge is far less than a two year Capital Appeal Process (CAP) budgets used to be managed exclusively by International Aid Agencies as caretaker government for Somalia in the past 20 years.

Jens Mjaugedal stated that “Somalia is the one of the most privatized countries in the world,” which means Somalia is without State authority. Similarly, Professor Michael J Boyle said that Somalia’s conflict has been globalized. Thus, state-building in Somalia is an urgent matter for the purpose of international peace and security. History will remember the Nordic diplomats for their bold actions of bringing the true reality of Somalia to the attention of everyone. Somali leaders failed to reflect and act upon the reality of their people and country.

With regard to the endemic corruption labelled against Somali leaders, the source is from the anti-state-building strategy pursued by powerful foreign actors involved in the internal politics of Somalia. Today, majority of the Somali people believe that they lost control, ownership, and freedom of determining their own future to outside forces. This feeling could produce disastrous backlash for all.

Before presenting and commenting the dissenting argument of Professor Ken Menkhaus, I like to mention below three instructive points the General Secretary of the g7+, Helder da Costa, made in a letter published in the guardian newspaper in April 2014 under the title “New Deal for fragile states needs time and political commitment to flourish.”

• The New Deal demands fundamental changes in the modus operandi of donor powers and the way they work in fragile countries. It details principles, commitments, and actions. The practice of risky taking, speedy actions, flexibility, persistence, and creativity are proviso in it.
• The “better angels” working in the development agencies know the positive effects of the New Deal, but they remain stuck to their institutional culture stubbornly resistant to changes;
• Genuine state-building demands great investment of time, resources and political will.

On 29 April, Professor Ken Menkhaus published his dissenting policy note probably intended to delight the US Administration concerned with security and not with state-building. The Media briefing of May 3 on Secretary of State John Kerry meeting with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud of Somalia in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, indicates US Administration’s ambiguity on state-building in Somalia. While US Administration accorded diplomatic recognition to the federal government of Somalia, it also allowed regional actors to dishevel Somalia and undermine state-building goals. This could fuel new political and social tensions if not conflicts.

The title of the dissenting policy note is “If Mayors ruled Somalia-Beyond state-building impasse” which first reinterprets and then dismisses the views expressed by the two Nordic diplomats. Professor Ken Menkhaus’ attempt seems to be part of a larger effort to kill the agenda of the new deal after the crisis and abysmal performance of Somalia, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Unfortunately, Somalia – the classic example of failed states- has also become quickly an example for state-building failure.

Consistently, Professor Ken has been arguing against the restoration of the Somali State that collapsed in January 1991 on the basis of his selective, embellished, and recycled narratives not subjected to rigorous academic and empirical research and analysis. He confidently predicts that “with or without the $2.3 billion in new deal assistance, Somalia’s government will remain weak and fragile for years to come.” His intense pursue of promoting “hybrid governance in Somalia” is shaped by his following findings against the South Central Somalia:

• Somali political elites in Mogadishu embraced state-building as a lucrative project, but not as an objective. In addition, Somali leaders lack not only capacity but political will as well.
• The culture of corruption and deep rooted problems of spoilers among the political and business elites in Mogadishu is endemic.
• The serious problem of insecurity and access in South Central Somalia makes the principles of inclusivity and local ownership out of reach by government;
• The legitimacy weakness of any government due to the intensity of divisions over representation, clan, political Islam, and federalism insurmountable;
• The realization of social contract between state and citizens in South Central Somalia is unrealistic in the short term (in generation);
• To find a solution to “Somalia’s wicked problem” remains almost impossible. Therefore, Somalis and foreign donors have to accept flawed, contested municipality governments of dubious legitimacy.

On August 8, 2012, few days after the approval of the provisional constitution which ended the transition period and established a permanent government, Professor Ken Menkhaus published a paper titled, “Somalia’s 20-Year Experiment in Hybrid Governance,” in which he argued that Somali State cannot be reconstituted in the foreseeable future and then, he listed the arguments of four schools of thought about the relevance of informal governance system (hybrid governance) in Somalia. As one of the multiple synonymous terms of the concept of “hybrid governance,” he settled on “Municipality governance (city-state)” ruled by Mayors. It is not clear if the concepts of secession and separation of communities are integral part of hybrid governance which considers the discussion of national constitution premature subject.

The description associated with municipality governances as location for multiple clans, best governance for law and order, or basic service delivery defies reality, economics, demography, legitimacy, security, and politics and is far from empirical truths. Also, the claim that accountability is stronger in most municipalities for proximity to citizens is also demonstrably weak.

However, it is possible that under certain circumstances cities and towns are less encumbered by clan disputes simply because one sub sub clan dominates in each city. But it is hard to see how external assistance denied to a national government could be channeled to municipal administrations given the rules governing foreign aid, and how INGOs assistance will improve the livelihood of war devastated and fragmented country.

It is academically dishonest to argue that donor powers have ever seriously attempted to peacebuilding and state-building in Somalia. In fact, Dr. Michael J. Boyle noted that “Somalia has played the part-both in political practice and political myth- of a testing ground in which states play out their fantasies out of political order. The consequence is that Somalia, as a real place with real people, has rarely been seen on its own terms.” Therefore, the foreign driven political initiatives in the last 12 years were far more lucrative projects to donor agencies and their bureaucrats compare to Somali Elites.

Following a workshop organized by the London School of Economics and Political Science in collaboration with the University of Antwerp on Hybrid Governance, Professors Kate Meagher, Tom De Herdt, and Kristof Titeca have published a briefing article titled, “ Hybrid governance in Africa: Buzzword or paradigm shift?,” in the African Argument website. The article presents long list of yet to be answered questions about this new concept sold as “practical and legitimate governance that works.” 

The questions include the role of academics as promoters or investigators of the new concept, or the powers that create the hybrid governance when good governance norms have been disregarded, or if hybrid governance enhances the performance and legitimacy of the state or erodes them. The professors cautioned against the assumption that all informal institutions are locally legitimate by definition as a misreading of local realities.

Another unanswered question is how hybrid governance deals with public accountability and citizenship rights. The participants of the workshop noted the growing evidence that hybrid governance does not always represent good synergistic arrangement between weak (fragile) states and local institutions. The scholars who attended the workshop advised the academics promoting hybrid governance to exercise prudence so that they do not get their hand deep in the dirty. 

The consensus on addressing the problems of fragile states is well spelled out in the New Deal partnership for effective international development cooperation between donor powers and fragile states.

By: Mohamed M. Uluso

Prof. Abdi I. Samatar oo la kulmay jaaliyada Soomaalida Netherlands

From: Hiil Qaran

Professor Abdi Ismail Samatar oo ah xogahaya guud ee xisbiga Hiil-Qaran ayaa khubad dhinacyo badan taabaysa ka jeediyey shir ay isugu yimaadeen jaaliyada Soomaalida Holland, kaasoo lagu qabtay magaalada Den Haag ee xarunta siyaasada dalka Netherlands. Shirkan oo uu soo qaban qaabiyey xisbiga Hiil-Qaran faraciisa dalka Netherlands, ayaa waxaa ujeedadiisu aheyd in Prof. Abdi Samatar uu Soomaalida warbixin faahfaahsan ka siiyo safarka uu kaga soo laabtay magaalada Muqdishu iyo inuu sawir guud ka bixiyo xaalada dalka uu ku sugan yahay.

Abdi I. Samatar waxa uu marka hore ka tacsiyadeeyey geeridii taxdinta laheyd ee ku timid Danjire Sharif Saalax oo ku dhintay Muqdishu, isagoo ka codsaday ka qeyb galayaasha in loo wada duceeyo marxuumka oo uu ku tilmaamay siyaasi in badan ka soo qeyb qaatay siyaasada dalka. Intaa ka dib waxa uu ka hadlay xaalada colaadeed, siyaasadeed iyo mida nololadeed ee uu dalka hadda ku sugan yahay, isagoo walaac ka muujiyey qaabka hadda wax loo wado ee la doonayo in maamul goboleedyo lagaga dhiso dalka.

“Waxyaabaha soo kordhay waxa weeye imanka waxa weeye in ciidamadii Ethiopia lagu soo daray AMISOM oo la yiri idina ka qeyb qaata nabad dhalinta Somalia, laakiin anigu uma arko wax xal ah in Ethiopia ay wax ka badeli karto mushkilada hadda, waayo Ethiopia sumcad wanaagsan kuma laha dalka Somalia, mana ah talo wanaagsan in AMISOM lagu daro,” ayuu yiri Abdi Samatar. Waxa uu sheegay in Ethiopia waxa ay hadda u soo xiratay shaarkii AMISOM ay tahay in lagu diyaariyo maamul-goboleedyo qabiilo matela oo deetana madax looga dhigo rag diyaarsan oo wax walba lagu shuban karo, lagana dhaadhicin karo.

“Anigu welwelka aan qabo waxa weeyo waa dagaalo cusub oo soo fool leh oo ka dhalan kara maamul-goboleedyada hadda la wado, bal eeg maamul goboleedyadii horey u jiray maxay qabteen, ujeedada laga leeyahay waxa weeye uun qabiil wax maamula, mid kastana uu dabada ka riixayo dowlado shisheeye oo dano gaar ah leh,” ayuu yiri A. I. Samatar. “Hogaamiye kasta oo sheegta maamul goboleed ma ah inuu wax u qabanyo dadka masaakiinta ah ee mamaulkiisa ku hoos ku nool ee waxa uu doonayaa uun sidii uu mar uun ugu fariisan lahaa kursigaa yaala madaxtooyada oo aad mooday inaanu noqotay duqsigii ku degay malabkaa villa Somalia yaala oo dabadeedna ku dhagay.”

Mar uu ka hadlayey xaalada nololeed ee dalka, waxa uu ka dhigay macluul baahsan oo ku habsata malaayiin qof oo Soomaaliyeed oo sabab u ah buu yiri laba arrimood oo kala ah; colaadaha jira iyo abaaro.

“Waxaan ka baqayaa in malaayiin Soomaali ah oo nugul ay u dhintaan nolol xumo haddii colaadaha jira ay sii socdaan isla markaana la waayo roobabkii di’i jiray oo meesha ay ka baxdo dalagii dadku beeran jireen,” ayuu yiri A. Samatar. Dhinaca siyaasada, waxa uu Abdi Samatar ka hadlay in weli aanu jirin hogaan toosan oo dalka ka saari kara dhibaatada uu ku jiro, waxaadna meesha ka maqan buu yiri hayįdahii dowliga ee ficil ku badeli lahaa hadalada badan ee warbaahinta laga sheego ee ah in wax la qabanayo.

Waxa uu intaa ku daray in nin kasta oo madaxweyne ka noqda Xamar uu markiiba sameysto cadaawad siyaasadeed oo isaga uuna uu doonayo in tiisa la maqlaa, kolkaa marka uu ka dagana xilka aanu ku dhici karin inuu dalka ku sii noolaado. “Bal eeg Sheekh Sharif car haku dhaco inuu Xamar dego, waa kan Kampala u cararay uu halkaasi degay, maxay kula tahay baad u maleenaysaa inuu Kampala maciin bado, waa siyaasad xumada iyo cadowtinimada uu dadka sameystay.” ayuu Samatar hadalkiisa sii raaciyey.

Dhinaca kale waxa uu ka hadlay waxyaabaha ay reer galbeedku ka qoreen qoreen taariikhda dadka iyo dalka Soomaaliyeed oo uu ku sheegay mid qaldan oo laga dhigay in Soomaalidu ay reer yihiin oo aanay jirin mab’da dhaafsiisan qabiil oo ay wadaagi karaan, taasina ayaa buu yiri caalamka laga dhaadhiciyey oo nalagu maamulaa ilaa hadda. “Marry Harper oo ah weriye u shaqeyn jirtay BBC-da ay qoraal ay ka sameysay Somalia ku tilmaantay qariiradeeda mid u sameysan sidii geeska wiisha oo leh caarad af leh oo wax muda, markaa waxay ula jeedaa qariiradii baa colaad muujinaysa, dadkiina kaba daran, waxaasina waxa hada nalaga aaminsan yahay oo waxaa la qariyey in Soomaaliya ay tahay dalkii ugu horeeyey Afrika e si dumuqraadiyad leh hogaamiye xilka uga degay.” Gebagebadii ayaa Abdi Samatar waxa uu ka jawaabay su’aalo ay weydiiyeen dadkii ka soo qeyb galay shirka.

Mohamed Abdi Farah (Afgoye)

Al Shabaab, AMISOM, and the United States

From: CFR

In a recent article on the Daily Maverick, Simon Allison identifies the “surprisingly perceptive” core message of al Shabaab leader Ahmed Abdi Godane’s recent propaganda audio message.

In his message, Godane urges his Somali comrades to throw out their Kenyan and Ethiopian occupiers. Allison notes that, although unsettling, Godane is, in certain respects, correct and tapping into widespread sentiments. 

Despite operating in Somalia under the authority of an African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) to rid the country of al Shabaab, Kenyan and Ethiopian troops are, in fact, occupying Somalia. 

Their goals are not altruistic, and are largely informed by their own national security and political considerations. Thus, instead of celebrating the foreign troops’ efforts to stem al Shabaab, Somalis are worried about the outsized influence being wielded by foreign powers in their country. Although troubled by these developments, the United States and its partners have other goals in the region that will prevent any intrusion into Kenyan or Ethiopian plans.

Godane’s message is particularly striking when considering the formation of federal states in Somalia. In the absence of strong leadership from the Somali Federal Government (SFG), Kenya and Ethiopia have assumed leadership positions as state builders and negotiators in southern Somalia. In practice, this means that Kenya and Ethiopia have been able to influence the formation of new federal states, and create governments that will benefit their own national security concerns.

As an example of this influence, Kenya and Ethiopia had an important role in the creation of the Interim Jubba Administration (IJA), a new federal state consisting of the Somali regions (Gedo, South Juba, and Middle Juba) bordering Kenya. Effectively, the IJA acts as a buffer state between Kenya and the threat posed by al Shabaab in Somalia. Ethiopia is involved as a negotiator for the creation of the IJA because it wants to maintain involvement and influence in the region as it deals with its own ethnic Somali population. Despite disagreements regarding the proposed make-up of this federal state from other regions and conferences in southern Somalia, the SFG has endorsed the IJA because it must maintain Ethiopian and Kenyan support as it battles al Shabaab.

This competition for influence over land in Southern Somalia is not likely to lead to a sustainable governance model for Somalia moving forward, and is already causing regional strife. Somalia would be wise to ensure that whatever governance plan, or federal state organization, is put in place is durable enough to last after AMISOM forces have left, regardless of current security concerns.

Due to AMISOM’s recent successes against al Shabaab forces, proxy states and vigorous counter terrorism operations by foreign forces seems likely to continue. Unfortunately this means the pattern of Kenyan and Ethiopian meddling in Somalian political affairs is likely to continue. Godane’s message is dangerous because it taps into that fact. The U.S. is interested in long term stability of Somalia, but the immediate concerns are to stabilize the Horn of Africa and to exterminate al Shabaab. Therefore, despite feeding al Shabaab’s propaganda machine and potentially destabilizing Somalia in the future, the United States will likely turn a blind eye to Kenyan and Ethiopian influence in Somalia.

The Reason Behind Creating Tribal Federal States in Somalia

 From: Waagacusub

For some Neighbor States like Ethiopia and Kenya it is a Strategy for defeating the Pan-Somalia Dream. "The smaller pieces of a pie are easier to eat it"

Many historians of Somalia are convinced that Tribal community political ideologies only developed in contact with the European ‘thinking about tribes’ which the missionaries and colonial officers brought to Somalia.

Early 19^Th Century Colonialism drew borders which did not exist and threw together Somali people who would ordinarily have lived together into one Somali nation and nationality. During the colonial era, the Europeans used various approaches to dominate the Somali tribes. In varying degrees, the French, British and Italians tried to transform the Somalis into five colonial regions in Horn of Africa (NFD, Ogadenia, French Djibouti, British Colonial and Italian Colonial). Like any cultural group that was arbitrarily divided at the Scramble for Africa, Somalis will not stop with the dream of reunification of all their population into a greater Somalia.

To begin with, as the Dervishes Liberation era dawned in the late 1910s and SYLs, SNL and USP early 40s, the West realized the great threat posed to its hegemony by an independent and unified Somalia in Horn of Africa. Nowhere is the neo-colonial thumbprint more evident than in Somalia. 

Defining back the relation between colonialism and tribal states, you have to know the distinction in between two phases of colonialism; that is, active and passive colonialism. The former refers to the conquest of a people followed by the direct control (or domination) of the same by the conquerors using a combination of measures such as military coercion and dominance of major internal institutions such as the polity. The latter, on the other hand, represents what is commonly referred to as neo-colonialism or the extension of especially economic domination of a people beyond the attainment of self-rule. The second phase of colonization is associated with practices, policies and structures inherited from the first phase. These constitute a colonial legacy that, in our view, impacts on the extent of corruption in independent Somali nation. 

Recently the passive colonialists had organized group of Somali tribal leaders to select the members of the Somalia’s future legislatures (4.5 tribal systems). Remember to collect taxes; the colonial governments mostly relied on local Somali tribal leaders and especially chiefs. Where chiefs did not exist or were uncooperative, new ones were appointed by the colonial powers. Above all, to motivate chiefs to generate as much tax revenue as possible, and do so with zeal, the colonial administrations allowed them to retain a part of it.

To understand the association between corruption and the practice of divide and rule one must reflect on some of the methods utilized to sustain it. Those tribal state warlords groups such as Somaliland and Puntland are enjoying a privileged status in the ex-colonial administration were rewarded with easy access to western aid donations and political assistance's. 

The modernization of tribal war and politics have paved the way for an aggressive build-up of illegal high powered firearms in Somalia  posing a serious threat to development, progress and freedom. All public properties, including schools, seaports, airports and aid posts, in Somalia are subject to possession by Tribal States such as Puntland and Somaliland.

Today Somalia is at the mercy of Western political interference propaganda and media conglomerates which relentlessly paint the country as one beset by poverty, piracy, terrorists crime, diseases and endless wars which has to be rescued by foreign aid workers and sanctimonious celebrities at Nairobi and Addis Ababa...Because of those UN Envoys, Aid donors, and foreign NGO’s Somalis have lost their way, culturally, politically and economically.

Contemporary forms of Tribalism in Somalia are growing in magnitude and incessantly adopting violent forms. It is a barrier to peace, violates the dignity of human race across social and tribal boundaries, and holds back victims development. The Current Somali man/woman will think of himself as a Hawiye, Darod, Digil-Mirifle or an Isaaq rather than, say, a Somali.  This is because the tribal states that exist in Somalia now did not exist before the civil war. Today, the influences of the tribes, tribal beliefs, and tribal chiefs are increasing.  Loyalty to the Somali Nation is gradually being replaced by loyalty to a Tribal State, and tribal conflicts become strong and have resulted in civil wars and monumental slaughter of peoples. The expectation that you can develop a Tribal state in Somalia exclusively is just too wishful thinking. The thinking that you can hate a tribe or a group of people and expect to build a prosperous and for the Tribal State itself survive is quite myopic. The problem in governing Somalia squarely lies with tribalism, a shakily United Nations NGOs, greed, external interests, poverty, and skewed allocation of resources dating from many years in the past and so on.

Recently the Hope of Somalis has been cheated out of the corrupted legislatures (parliamentarians) members and their owners of so called "UNSOM, USAID, UNDP, Qatar, and AMISOM” using voting manipulations they sought are indisputable. What is reprehensible is the cynical manner in which the Somali people’s genuine anger has been orchestrated into ‘tribal states conflict.’ That is the danger that Somalia faces-unscrupulous leaders backed by foreign interests dividing their people in order to cling to power. These are leaders without vision, traitors to Pan-Somali ideals, squandering the sacrifices of heroes who gave their lives for the dream of a free United Pan-Somalia. 

My Fellow Somalis, Tribalism is pervasive, and it controls a lot of our actions, readily overriding reason. Think of the inhuman things we do in the name of tribal unity and tribal mini-states. Wars are essentially, and often quite specifically, tribalism. Genocides are tribalism – wipe out the other group to keep our group safe – taken to madness. 

My fellow Somali citizens before a year is over we require no less than an imaginative, intelligent and broadly accepted constitution and elected anti-corruption and anti-tribalism leaders like Mrs. Yussur Abrar  . Otherwise we are not out of the woods yet.

By: Haboon Haji Abdi

Ethiopia: Silence, Pain, Lies and Abductions

From : Wardheernews

The Ethiopian Government, through its foreign ministry,  responded to Martin Plaut’s article “Silence and Pain: Ethiopia’s human rights record in the Ogaden” with the usual feigned shock and template denial that has long characterized the regime’s political personality. It is the established behavior of aggressive and autocratic regimes to discount well-founded reports of human right violations as propaganda constructs of the ‘enemy’. 

The response from the Foreign Ministry was thus nothing more than a well memorized and rehearsed Ethiopian way of disregarding documented depravities committed by the regime. As usual, the tenor of the regime’s reaction is blame apportionment, not done on the basis of reasoned assessment of the evidences presented, but prompted by the urge to bear out its political prejudice and cover-up.

This is a regime whose character has the potential to confuse even Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, former Reagan foreign policy advisor, who made a distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes. In her essay “Dictatorship and Double Standards,” she describes authoritarian dictators as “pragmatic rulers who care about their power and wealth and are indifferent toward ideological issues, even if they pay lip service to some big cause”; while, in contrast, totalitarian leaders are “selfless fanatics who believe in their ideology and are ready to put everything at stake for their ideals”.

We face a regime that is an amalgam of authoritarianism and totalitarianism paying lip service to the cause of ‘development’ while fanatically believing that a small gun-wielding minority has the right to rule the country forever. Although it calls itself “revolutionary democracy”, as oxymoronic as this is, the country is run by a revolutionary autocracy, whose slogan for justifying the oppression of the most valuable asset of the country – its people – has become “we build roads, schools and dams”.

Why deign a response to Plaut’s article?

Martin Plaut’s timely and courageous article deserves appreciation. He is one man who felt his responsibility as a journalist obligates him to bring hidden atrocities to the eyes of the world, even when the most powerful countries in the world would prefer to look the other way than to see the crimes committed with their money. If his report has a flaw, it is that it has adopted a very high evidence threshold not applied for other countries where atrocities are reported from such as Syria, and consequently has omitted several large-scale violations in the Somali Region of Ethiopia, including the Malqaqa massacre of May 17, 2010, the Gunagado massacre of February 12, 2012, and the Qorille massacre of September 06, 2012.

A question worth asking however is why the Foreign Ministry chose to respond to Martin Plaut when the allegations captured in his article are not new? Numerous local and international journalists, reputed global human rights activists, thousands of refugees who run away from the region, and defected members of the repressive regime have been saying the same thing for years. 

 In fact, the Congress of the biggest ally of the regime, the United States, has enacted a budget law as recently as January 2014, which contains important provisions that a) “put the Congress on record as noting the Ethiopian government is violating human rights; and b) prohibits the U.S. government from providing foreign aid that supports the violation of human rights”. A Senate report that accompanies the law says Congress is “concerned with the use of anti-terrorism laws to imprison journalists, political opponents, and others calling for free and fair elections and political and human rights.”

The answer to the question is that the regime is aware of the integrity of Mr. Plaut as a journalist and worries that its western funders, embarrassed by the exposé, may start asking questions. Although the Ministry’s denial of the allegations of human right violations in Somali Region was riddled with the usual ‘take our words over what you see in your own eyes or hear from everyone else”, it was astonishing that the regime put an effort to debate Mr. Plaut abstemiously without resorting to the harangues and threats that Ethiopian critics in diaspora face when they decry the regime’s atrocities.

From the day the current regime came to power in 1991, it has always been more responsive to the complaints of foreigners than to the outcry of its own people, a predisposition that affirms its utter contempt for the opinions of its citizens. Ironically, the same regime beats an anti-Western, anti-colonial drum when the foreign powers it relies for its survival raise one or two mild concerns. Geopolitical exigencies allowed the Ethiopian regime to take the money of the West while shunning its sermons on democracy and human rights. The regime is a friend of the West’s money and a foe of its principles, all at same time.

It is futile to think unearthing evidences of atrocities committed by the regime will change its relationship with its Western funders. The West has long subordinated principles to geopolitical interests, one reason why the days of universal moral outrages against injustice are the thing of the past. Thanks to the age of the internet, the world has observed, with shock, the double standards of the West. The regime knows Plaut’s report will not engender a shift in the policy of the West towards it, but it does not like to take a chance.

In its reply, the Ethiopian government made a couple of shocking and contentious refutations which deserve an answer.

Divide-and-kill

First, the Government states that the Ogaden clan makes up only 30 percent of the population in the Somali Region of Ethiopia. This may or may not be true, although the source of this data was not revealed. The 2007 census actually indicated that the Ogaden clan makes up 50 per cent of the total population in the Somali region. So, is the regime confirming that they have killed or displaced 20 per cent of the community since 2007 when it launched a brutal anti-insurgency against the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF)? Whatever its number, the size of the Ogaden community cannot justify the atrocities against it. 

This is a regime afflicted with the politics of slicing its citizens into ethnic groups, clans and sub-clans, rather than looking at them as individual human beings each with an inalienable right for life and dignity. The focus on the number of the Ogaden community betrays a tyrannical mindset that others and undercounts people in order to rationalize killing of members of the communities it deems “recalcitrant”.

In 2011, the late Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, in a press conference, claimed that his government was facing resistance from only one sub-clan of the Ogaden clan: the reer-Isaq. Here was a full Prime Minister of a country singling out an entire community under his rule as “anti-government”. Of course, the result of that reckless or deliberate finger-pointing was what followed: summarily execution, detention, and displacement of the reer-Isaq community. 

Whether the Prime Minister’s point was to understate the appeal of the ONLF as a rebel group or whether he was sending signals for his henchmen in the region to act against this community is inconsequential. The fruits of his speech were the Guna-Gado massacre, the arrest of community leaders such as Sultan Fozi Ali Abdi, Garad Hassan Makhtal, and many others, some of whom have perished in detention.

This is not to imply that only a sub-clan or the Ogaden clan alone is the victim of the anti-insurgency measures of the regime. The 50 innocent civilians executed in Mooyaha village, near Jigjiga town, on December 17, 2008, were from the Abaskul clan, not from the Ogaden clan. The tens of civilians killed in the Galka-boodo-libaah, Dhoobo Guduud, Raqda and Adaada villages of Gashaamo district on March 16, 2012 by the Liyu Police were from the Isaq clan, not from the Ogaden clan. 

The purpose of re-narrating Meles’s veiled instructions against a specific sub-clan is to highlight the divide-and-kill methodology of the supposed national leaders and the wantonness they can succumb to in order to prolong their control of the state. In fact, the same line of argument – that “only some sub-clans” were against the government – is repeated in the Foreign Ministry’s response to Mr. Plaut. Today, this politics of divide-and-kill has found currency in Ethiopia under the guise of ethnic federalism, while its genocidal ramifications are ignored and made to assume a parochial resonance by the international community.

Of pictures and audio-visual evidences 

The Government claimed that the Somali region is open for journalists and that some media outlets such as the Guardian, the Globe and  Mail, and Time World have compiled reports that paint a” different picture of the situation in the region and the development there”.

These outlets may have written about some infrastructural development in the region, although it is unlikely that they painted a rosy picture about the human rights situation in the region. What is instructive is the selective referencing of the Government when it comes to international media reports from the region. The regime is happy to quote reports which mention social and economic developments in the region, but denounces those that speak of violations and abuses against civilians. 

For each and every story on roads built in the region, there are three or four reports on forced relocations of villages, extra-judicial detentions and killings, blockage of aid and commercial food to areas perceived to be hotbeds of rebels. The New York Times, Aljazeera, BBC, and many other media houses have aired damning reports from the region.

Most of these reports, compiled by investigative journalists who sneaked into the region, presented audio-visual evidences of the violations. Interviews with victims and satellite images of burnt villages were part of the evidences presented. Needless to say, more than 30,000 refugees who fled the region and are currently in Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya are living evidences – far more reliable than audiovisuals – of the atrocities the Ethiopian regime perpetrates in the Somali region. 

These refugees have repeatedly shown Somali, Kenyan and international media the horrors they faced in their own land before fleeing, often revealing unsightly physical damages as a mortifying souvenir of the torture they went under.

As recently as 2013, Abdullahi Hussein, a former aide of the President of the Somali Regional State, defected and released over 100 hours of videos showing soldiers kicking dead bodies, Liyu police members confessing atrocities and elders complaining about the treatment of the Liyu Police. One gruesome video was particularly heart-breaking. It showed the Somali Regional State President posing for pictures few meters from the dead bodies of what was later reported to be civilians killed by the Liyu Police in Malqaqa, a village in Fiq zone.

 

It is therefore laughable when the Ethiopian Government, without suffering any reflexive shame, asks “why are there no photographs taken by mobile phones that show the supposed atrocities?”

There are hundreds of pictures and videos out there, but do they really matter? Won’t the regime reject pictures from mobile phones as being photo-shopped or claim that they are taken elsewhere? If there is nothing to hide, why the tight control on internet and mobile phones in Ethiopia, including the banning of Skype? 

How can you ask for evidence when you do everything possible to ensure no such evidence is ever taken outside the country? When you close off entire regions from the eyes of the international media?  Who sees evidence of atrocities against North Koreans every day?

By the way, what does the Ethiopian Government mean when it says the 2008 Human Rights reports about the Ogaden region are not updated? Does it mean the names of victims included in that report are no longer valid because they are released or have already died? Why does it matter if the report is outdated or not? The point is that it covered the atrocities of the time and there is no evidence that violations have stopped now. 

The Ethiopian Government claims that it investigated the alleged violations and found no systematic abuses. Who investigated who? Isn’t this like Saddam Hussien investigating the Halabjah massacre of the Kurds and coming up with a report that finds only a minor misdemeanor by some soldiers?

Ethiopia, heaven for the press?

There is no need to respond to the claims by the regime that there is a press freedom in Ethiopia. It is a pure baloney that even the most ardent supporters of the regime do not take seriously. It would perhaps be germane to mention that the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) lists Ethiopia as among the top-ten countries in the world who jail journalists.

Denying even the most evident facts, Al Sahaf style?

Perhaps what encapsulates the regimes pathological fixation with lying is its claim that two ONLF central committee Members, Sulub Abdi Ahmed and Ali Hussien (Ali Dheere), were not abducted from Nairobi in February 2014. These men disappeared a month or so ago and have not been seen again. All the evidence collected by the Kenyan Police shows that they were attacked while emerging from a restaurant in Nairobi and forcibly taken to Ethiopia.

In fact, the official website of the Somali Regional State, Cakaaranews.com, broke the news of the abductions hours after the men went missing, claiming that “two shiftas (bandits) were captured while trying to sneak into Ethiopia to continue their anti-peace acts”. The story was later withdrawn. It is widely believed that, realizing the diplomatic embarrassment it can cause it, the Federal Government of Ethiopia instructed the regional authorities to retract the story.

The whereabouts of these two men are not yet known, although there are strong indications that they are held in a military prison in Harar in eastern Ethiopia. These men, who supposedly have “chosen the path of peace and gave themselves up to the Ethiopian state”, are yet to contact their distressed families who do not know whether they are dead or alive. The understanding is that they are either killed or that they have been severely tortured and are not yet fit enough to face the cameras to “confess their change of heart”.

Ethiopian Foreign Ministry’s farcical story that these men gave themselves up is therefore a burlesque of the theatrics of Mohamed Saeed AlSahaf, Iraqi’s Information Minister during the second US invasion of Iraq.

Overcoming fear, the start of freedom

The abduction or killing of political opponents in other countries is not a sign of strength. It is a sign of desperation and weakness. It is nothing new as well. Tyrannical regimes do engage in cross-border assassinations and abductions. It is what Mu’ammar Gaddafi used to do in Egypt against dissidents.

It is what Kagame is doing against defectors in South Africa. Despots do not rest even if they have full control over all the people in the lands they rule. They fear the truth. They fear those who defy them even if the latter live far away, for despots are aware of the frailty of their house of cards which can only survive if their subjects continue to fear them. Those who do not fear are a thorn to despots; and despots cannot rest without eliminating them.

The only way the people of the Somali regional state, and the rest of Ethiopians as well, can chart a better future for themselves is by overcoming fear and standing up to the regime. And overcoming fear starts by telling the truth and refusing to be intimidated by the medieval tactics of the regime – threats, assassinations and abductions.

The fragmented Ethiopian opposition may as well redraw its strategy. As long as they continue to partake in the divisive ‘ethnic-based’ game plan of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) – the ruling party in Ethiopia – they will continue to chase the rotating tail of the regime.

They must introduce a different game ball, one which emphasizes the shared democratic aspirations of all freedom-loving citizens not the sectarian interests of each ethnic group. They can’t expect to win a game whose rules are set by the regime. They must come up with a new game and new rules. And if that means jettisoning long-cherished ambitions and dogmas, so be it. The political repression we face has no sectoral confines. It must be fought from the pedestal of national consensus.

By:

Muktar M. Omer

Mr. President, Turn it Around

From Hiiraan:

When President Hassan Mahmoud took office in Sept 2012, like most of us, I thought finally Somalia will solve at least its most pressing issues: The lack of an accountable government, security, Somalia’s global image, and the economic problem in the country. Of course I wasn’t naïve to believe that these problems will be solved in fifteen-months or in that case in two years; however, I had the cautionary understanding that at least the president will put the foundation for a successful government and strengthen the government’s reach. 

But today it seems like the president is slowly losing everything that his predecessors fought hard to create let alone President Hassan strengthening and building the foundation of a successful country, and I say that as a concerned citizen.

Have you heard of Fetridge’s infuriating law or Murphy’s law? Well, let’s see what these laws state. Fetridge’s law states: everything that is supposed to happen wouldn’t happen when you need them the most. On other hand, Murphy’s law says: everything that could go wrong will go wrong at the worst moment. 

Combine these two laws and you will have a pretty good picture of what’s happening now in Somalia: everything that we hoped to happen isn’t happening, and everything that could possibly go wrong is going wrong in the country.

Take for example Al-Shabaab’s resurgence in Mogadishu. The group has resumed its nighttime mortar shelling of the city which has been absent since Sheikh Sharif was the president and the group withdrew from the city. It has also increased its day light roadside or suicide attacks since President Hassan took office. 

Moreover, the city of Mogadishu has no Internet connection because Al-Shabaab disconnected the Internet network from the city and other parts of the country. It seems like Al-Shabaab is micromanaging the city.

Then there’s the corruption allegations: since this president took office two central bank governors had resigned from the office because of corruption, and the government of Somalia did not investigate these cases. Even the president went to say, according to an interview that he gave to the Financial Times, that he doesn’t understand why the donor nations are worried about “this thing” of central bank when corruption allegations became a public knowledge. In fact this has forced Turkey, which used to give the government $4 million every month, to reconsider this direct funding at the end of last year.

 Probably the president and his advisers underestimated the corruption allegations that they were facing, and thus failed to be proactive and engage public relations to shape the message. In the world of mass media and information war, public perception is the reality regardless if those allegations are unfounded.

Moreover, there’s the name calling. I mean what the diplomats, the spymasters, and opinion makers are saying about President Hassan’s leadership. The director of National Security Agency (NSA) of the U.S. called the president of Somalia “weak” leader not long ago. Remember that the NSA’s director has in his disposal the most sophisticated spy organization in the world to monitor whoever he wishes. 

The British parliament thinks the president isn’t doing enough, and both Somali opinion makers and non-Somalis think the president is losing the control of his government and his message. If you think I am exaggerating this statement look how far the President went to calm down rumors in the media that said last week that the president was “dead,” after senior government official told the world that the president of Somalia went to Turkey to get a medical check-up and to see his family.

 

And then there’s everything else: there’s this group that say the president is centralizing all power around his office: “technocrats including enthusiastic diaspora who have returned to help rebuild their country regularly complain that even low-ranking donor officials go over their heads and refuse to deal with anyone but the president, undermining efforts to build the very institutions donors say they want to exist,” wrote the Financial Times; there’s the political infighting; the lack of economic recovery and plan; still using the 4.5 tribe based political system; a huge cabinet; lack of finances; regional political conflicts; floods, droughts, and drones.

These are all substantial allegations and facts that can’t be ignored.

In fact, all of these shortcomings have the potential to destruct this president’s government, make him one term president, and one of the worst presidents that Somalia had unless he makes

immediate changes that shift instantly and turn around the direction that the country is moving.

These changes should start in the president’s palace. Start firing close advisors that have emotional attachment to the president including public relations people. The president should also fire presidential appointees that head the security apparatus of the country who failed to keep Mogadishu safe and systematically hunt Al-Shabaab. He should ask the prime minister to reduce the 52 ministerial positions to a manageable size focusing more on merit, efficiency and less on tribal demands.

The president should appoint, sincerely, an independent group to investigate corruption allegations, appoint independent central bank governor, and trust the prime minister and his government to do their job by empowering them. He should also cut his abroad travels and focus more on domestic issues such as security, writing the constitution and preparing the country for a national election, minting the Somalia Shilling, and build other governmental institutions.

Most importantly, strong accountability—more public engagement, transparency, proactive governing—and open diplomacy to all nations should accompany these changes. The president should attract people in his inner circle who have diverse views, experiences, educational background, less emotional attachment to his presidency, and care more about moving this country forward. One last thought, it would be imperative the president to act as a referee instead of a player in Somalia politics since he’s the President. 

By: Hassan Mire

Sunday, February 16, 2014

---